p. 196 | Up Again by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 15, 1864

Up Again.

By Editor

We had decided, as announced in No. 17, to drop a subject which, we think from no fault, certainly from no wish, of ours, was fast degenerating into an unpleasant controversy. We refer to our discussion with Eld. Himes of the Voice of the West, in relation to "Holy time, or the Sabbath." But in the Voice of Oct. 25, ult., he has again brought up the subject in a manner that should not pass unnoticed.

To refresh the mind of the reader, we must state again the circumstances from which the discussion arose. The Voice published what purported to be a true incident that two companies of missionaries took stations, the one on the Society Islands, the other on the Sandwich Islands, but passed to their stations in different directions, one company going west, the other east, so that in their reckoning of time they were one day apart, and the Sabbath with one company came one day earlier than with the other. The question was then asked which of those days was the Sabbath. This, bear in mind, was the point at issue. It was the gain and loss of time in going round the world; for one company by going west had lost half a day, and the other by going east had gained half a day, so that when they arrived at their respective Islands, one company was keeping one day as the Sabbath, and the other another, and the question was, how they were to tell which day was the right one. The question was aimed at us, and we took it up. But all we attempted to show was the utter inconsistency of Sunday-keepers' urging such an objection against Sabbath-keepers, from the fact that they keep just as definite a day as we do. They believe in keeping Sunday, the definite first day of the week, and no other. The missionaries referred to believed the same. But being one day apart they could not both have been keeping the definite first day of the week, which they and all Sunday-keepers believe in keeping. We therefore called upon Sunday-keepers, and Eld. Himes is one of them, to tell us which day those missionaries should have kept for the first day of the week; and we made the proposition that when they would tell us how the first day of the week could be kept under such circumstances, we would tell them how the seventh could be kept in a like case. On this point we nailed him to the wall, and he has never attempted a reply. But instead of replying he slips off on to the question whether the day should begin here at six o'clock or sunset, and from this question finds a pretext for a raid against sister White's visions—topics that have no more bearing upon the real point at issue, than would a discussion of the questions whether Canada is a cold country in winter, or Iowa a good state for watermelons.

Perceiving that it would be useless to try to make him come to the point, or hold him to the question, we thought best to drop it: but he has brought it up again; and it has come up on this wise:

Gilbert Cranmer, editor of the Hope of Israel, the paper noticed in No. 18, present volume, under a pompous insinuation that we had not answered Eld. Himes's question, and that it ought to be answered, &c., undertakes to reply himself. But in attempting to quote the incident above referred to in regard to the missionaries, he did not quote one single item correctly, and then he outraged all geography and astronomy by stating that one of the groups of islands referred to was in the eastern hemisphere, and the other in the western, so that the Sabbath would come to one, a day earlier than to the other; whereas every boy who has ever been in sight of a school-house ought to know that both groups are situated in the Pacific, the one south of the other, but on nearly the same line of longitude, so that the sun would rise and set at very nearly the same moment in both places; and that even if they were situated as he declares, there would not be a day's difference in time between the two places.

Now, says Eld. H., I had thought to let this matter rest, but as I perceive that "the question at issue is not fairly understood," I take it up again. He then commences with the "Review," taking up a remark in our last article on this subject, then states that the subject is not fairly understood, &c., and to show what the misunderstanding is, quotes the ridiculous statements given above from the Hope, then goes on with "Br. Smith."

Now what can his readers infer? Nothing more nor less than that the miserable mistakes set forth in the Hope, constitute our position. But Eld. H. knows that such is not our position, or at least that we have never based any of our arguments on any such premises. And if he took up his pen to correct the misunderstanding of the Hope, why does he not confine himself to that paper, instead of associating us therewith. In the name of all that is just, and fair, and honorable, we protest against being thus mixed up with that sheet, and made ridiculous before the public by being saddled with its stupidity and ignorance.

We do not say that any of this is intentional on the part of Eld. H. He is very sensitive over his motives. They must not be impeached. Granted then that in all his motives he is as pure as an angel. But the moment we do this, it becomes a matter of astonishment that so many misrepresentations should have been so innocently and unconsciously made.

And now that the subject is up, we will notice a point or two more. He says:

And at these two places, having the same longitude two different days are kept as the (Christian) Sabbath; and still each one is keeping the seventh day, (in rotation) to them. The missionaries who went from England kept one day in seven faithfully; those from New York did the same, and now each is keeping the seventh day (in rotation) "as it comes to them," and yet their Sabbaths are an entire day apart.

It is well admitted in the above that it was the (Christian) Sabbath that was kept by those missionaries. There is doubtless but one Christian Sabbath. Eld. H. says that he keeps the "Lord's day, the Christian Sabbath." There can be of course but one Lord's day in every week. Now will he tell us which one of those two days that were kept by the missionaries, as the Christian Sabbath was the right one? We trust he will get around by and by where he will see that the burden of proof, and the laboring oar on this question justly belongs to him. What if they did keep the seventh day in rotation? It would be difficult to keep any day of the week and not have it the seventh in rotation. But any day of the week is not the seventh enjoined in the commandment, neither is any day of the week the "Christian Sabbath." The question remains still open then for him to tell us which of those days was the true Christian Sabbath.

Again he says:

The law given by God to the Jews, that sunset should mark the beginning of the Sabbath, if applied universally (and strictly carried out,) would cause endless confusion, even on the same lines of longitude, all of which would be avoided if six o'clock, or any other specific hour were the point of commencement.

To which we reply that "all of which" would not be avoided, and none of which would be avoided by six o'clock or any other specific hour. Isn't it just as easy to tell when sunset of any day comes, as it is to tell when six o'clock of that day comes? Of course. But it so happens that twice in the year six o'clock is sunset. So twice in the year, the best way we can fix it, we must be subject to "endless confusion!" As to the confusion, all we can say is, that God certainly gave to Adam and through him to all his posterity, as they should spread all over the earth, the institution of the Sabbath; and he has nowhere given us any other point at which to commence that Sabbath, but the setting of the sun. Now we would rather not charge God with giving to his creatures an institution over which they would be involved in "endless confusion." We would much prefer to take our stand with the apostle, when he declares that "God is not the author of confusion."

In relation to charging us with regarding the word of God as an insufficient rule of faith and duty, he says that the language upon which he based that charge was this:

That some were decided by the vision who otherwise might not have been, we do not deny. And herein is seen one of the objects and blessings of this gift. Harmony now reigns where there might have been discord and division.

But we ask how this sets aside the word of God or represents it as insufficient. To what did the vision lead the persons referred to? To the word of God; to take a position which was found to be clearly laid down and sustained by that word. In our former article we asked Eld. H. if he believed in the Spirit of God at all. He replies that he does, and that it is given to lead us into all truth. Now we inquire, when the Spirit of God leads a person into the truth, does it not lead him to the word? Is he not influenced by it to renounce some wrong position which he has taken, or prevented from coming to some erroneous conclusion, and led to that which the word of God teaches? This is just what we claim that the vision did on the occasion referred to, and contend that this is one of the objects of that gift. Do we therefore by believing that the Spirit of God operated in this way through vision, one of its divinely ordained methods, make out the word of God to be an insufficient rule, any more than Eld. H. who believes that the Spirit accomplishes exactly the same results, only in a different manner? Not a particle; and every one can see it, except such as are exceedingly anxious not to see.

Then how does he twist himself out of this dilemma? He attempts it in the following language:

We believe the word so perfect that we may try even the Holy Spirit by it; but we do not know of any injunction to try the Word by the Spirit, or spirits, or even visions.

Marvelous to tell. Who has said anything about trying the word of God by a vision? Who has done any such thing? Have we? Let him produce the instance, or retract his unjust insinuation.

On one other point only we quote from the Voice. In relation to our claim that no command can be found in the New Testament forbidding the worship of graven images, Eld. H. says:

Br. S. says, the worship of images is not forbidden by the gospel. We might meet this by quoting Rom. i. Paul says that the facts of creation are sufficient to condemn idolatry. But Jesus said to the woman of Samaria, 'All true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth.' This cuts off idolatry, and all other false worship.

He might attempt to meet it by quoting Rom. i; but he could not meet it thus, for neither Rom. i, nor the words of Christ to the woman meet it. We did not say that the New Testament does not forbid idolatry. It says, "Flee from idolatry," and then it defines covetousness to be idolatry. We are speaking of the worship of images. And while Rom. i, declares that the works of creation so far reveal the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator, that none could have an excuse for considering any image either in the likeness of men, birds, four-footed beasts or creeping things, as the eternal God, yet nothing is said about worshiping him through symbols of any kind, much less is there any prohibition of such worship. So on John iv, 24, the worshiper of images might respond. "True we should worship the great God in spirit and truth; but we can worship our images also." Eld. H.'s construction of this language would prohibit our worshiping the Saviour, whom all the angels of God (and how much more human beings) have been commanded to adore. We repeat it then that in the New Testament, or what some are pleased to call the law of the gospel, or the law of the New Testament, and what Eld. Preble denominates a "new code of laws, praise God! worth having!" no prohibition of image worship can be found. Nor is it necessary that it should be. The Gospel is not the law book for mankind. We fall back upon that still living, still immutable and glorious royal law, which God wrote with his own finger on tables of stone, and read in plain terms, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." With this we shut the mouths both of Heathen idolaters, and Christian cavilers.